Sri G.H. Jagannath and Sri G.H. Shivakumar vs The Commissioner The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.P. Square, Bangalore - 560 002

S. Abdul Nazeer

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The respondent had issued an endorsement, as per Annexure-K dated 16.9.2005 directing the petitioners to close down the Silk Twisting Industry using power looms. Feeling aggrieved by the said order. '' petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court" in W.P.No.26643/2005. This Court by order dated 08.07.2008 quashed the said endorsement and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made therein, which is as under:

The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.09.2005 Annexure-K is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass orders strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations supra. As regard the prayer for renewal of licence, the authorities are directed to shall consider the petitioner''s application, in tandem with the consideration of the representation Annexure-R1 of the residents of the locality and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order

It is the case of the petitioners that despite the said order, the respondent has not considered grant of renewal of trade licence. Therefore, they have filed representations as per Annexures-D and E dated 18.8.2010 and 01.09.2010 respectively, requesting the respondent to consider their application for renewal of their licence in terms of the order of this Court referred to above. Since the representations have been not been considered, they have filed these writ petitions for a mandamus directing the respondent to consider the same.

It is clear from the materials on record that this Court while quashing the endorsement doted 16.9.2005 has directed the respondent to consider the application of the petitioners for renewal of lience in tandem with the consideration of the representation of the residents of the locality and pass appropriate orders thereon. Despite the said order, the respondent: has not considered the application of the petitioners. Therefore, 1 direct the respondent or his delegates to consider the application of the petitioners seeking renewal of trade licence as directed by this Court in the order referred to above within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly No costs.